WASHINGTON — President Obama’s nomination on Monday of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense, coupled with his pick of Senator John F. Kerry for secretary of state, would put two Vietnam veterans known for their cautious approach to the use of military force at the helm of American defense and foreign policy.
Hagel has come under fire from fellow Republicans for comments about the undue influence of the “Jewish lobby” and what they see as his lukewarm support for Israel and reluctance to support tougher actions against Iran. The stances, along with his 1998 criticism of an openly gay diplomat, have also alarmed some Democrats.
Comments
So the crazies don't like Hegel because he's not neo-con enough and they can claim to be bipartisan because there are a few Dems who do not like the Republican from Nebtaska. Basically, they nuked Rice and they smell more blood. If they can distract from their Tea Party positions long enough they feel they'll be able to do nothing before the next midterm elections and pretend the last election never happened. The last, worst, Congress will look like a hive of activity and bipartisanship after what you'll see over the next two years - pretty close to ZERO!
If aversion to war is a reason to vote against confirmation, we have a bigger problem than we know.
Let's name the War Lobby as opposition to the confirmations, that military-industrial complex Eisenhower (a man who had served in war) prophesied would doom us. There is a lot of money to be made in war and a lot of people lobbying for it.
I don't include McCain there. I think he has always been a bit of a hawk but I don't doubt his motives. But we ought to look at the money behind the votes of those who have not served on the battlefield for more than 2 weeks.
So are either of these guys "known for their cautious approach to the use of military force" going to do anything to reign in or at least shine some light on Obama's drone war that has approved more than four times the number of attacks that "warlord" George W. Bush authorized during his two terms?
No, because Obama nominated Brennan, the guy who was the proponent of th idea, as head of CIA
"...going to do anything to reign in or at least shine some light on Obama's drone war..."
Please don't lie to me or yourself, if, instead of Obama, it was Bush using drone strikes to go after America's enemies today, you'd be cheering their use as "justice raining down from heaven".
Try to see past your blind ideology to the bigger picture.
These two guys are aging love children whose politics were formed on Vietnam battlefields. Well, ain't that too bad. What about the thousands upon thousands of men (and a few women) whose late teens and early 20s were spent on the battlefields of Saipan and Italy and North Africa and Okinawa and France? Were those older men's experiences in war less than Kerry's and Hagel's - were these two members of the U.S. Senate fighting a crueler enemy than the Japanese or the SS? Or were they victims of John F. Kennedy's approach to fighting Communism (Kennedy was in office when the U.S. involvement in Vietnam started)? The Glob's Mr. Bender invokes a 'cautious approach to the use of military force' as being uppermost in the minds of these two heroes of Vietnam as they pass through middle life with a strong possibility of being put in charge of American military and diplomatic affairs by a guy who just loves to parade around pronouncing himself 'coimmander-in-chief'. As if most of the American public doesn't know that that President's job includes decisions on war, and even battles. Questions of Hagel's attitudes towards gays and Israel and Iran and other Middle East issues aside, maybe the question should be asked whether or not Hagel's attitude towards the United States continuing a role as the World's sole Superpower should be more important than his left-listed attitude towards the Iranian mullahs. As for Kennedy, we in Massachusetts sure ought to know that he will sway whichever way the political winds would influence the military, as he sees it. It was that way when he became a civilian after his genuinely brave service in Vietnam. Any reason to think it won't now?
Congratulations! One of the more incoherent posts this week: Aging love children? With Purple Hearts?
"As for Kennedy, we in Massachusetts sure ought to know that he will sway whichever way the political winds would influence the military, as he sees it. It was that way when he became a civilian after his genuinely brave service in Vietnam."
Did you mean Kerry instead of Kennedy?
Also, always love to hear a paid subscriber refer to the BG as the Glob.
And finally, the POTUS doesn't pronounce himself the Commander-in-Chief, WE did that 8 weeks ago.
I feel sorry for him, actually. He's a very sad person who never has a nice thing to say. He probably lives in a cardboard refrigerator box somewhere and uses an internet cafe and has smiled, much less laughed, for years. Those aren't misspellings, btw. He's trying to develop a new language so nobody will understand him. With that he's fairly successful.
Sorry, a typo.... The sentence in the entry below that starts, . . ."As for Kennedy, we in Massachusetts sure ought to know . . ." should read, . . ."As for Kerry, we in Massachusetts sure ought to know. . ." Apologies . . .
A typo?? As in which dark-haired Democratic Senator from Mass am I hating now? The live one with two Rs or the dead one with two Ns. Totally understandable.
Obama, Hagel, Kerry and Brennan. I feel safe
I agree with you 100%. Hopefully, we can all put the nightmare of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, all those NeoCon whackos finally behind us. So great to have smart, patriotic, inspirational US leadership again.
I had written my piece a few momentrs ago when sudenly it disappeared before I had finished. I'll try again. Why are we in Afghanistan? To defeat the supposed culprits responsible for the destruction of the Towers? But the Taliban and Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden could not possibly have the ability to take down the Towers if you look caefully at the way they came down. Only a superpowerful nation could possibly do this with its high technology. The high-jacked planes could not possibly be responsible for the collapse of the Towers. Engineers and architects know that this would be impossible just like when the Empire State building was accidentaaly struck by a B25 in 1939. It still stands. Just look at the pictures of the Towers as they "collapsed." I use quotes because they did not collapse as in an implosion and there was no evidence that 110 floors pancaked to ground level, except a relatively small amoung of rubble, (which was quickly removed even though it was a crime scene). The photo on the front cover of Dr. Judy Woods' book "Where Did the Towers Go." shows disintegration of the buildings. She used the word "Dustification" of the buildings by a form of hitherto unknown weaponry. Responders and escapees were brathjing in dust. To add to the confusion, we were told that the alleged high-jackers were from Saudi Arabia. Then what would you conclude from this?
Having studied the structure systems of the WTC shortly after they were built back in the 1970's, ! can state that you are absolutely, unequvocally, wrong. Those buildings could have been brought down with a few pounds of carefully placed dynamite, and tens of thousands of gallons of flaming jet fuel were more than enough to do the job. At the temperatures reached in the 9/11 fires, steel is as good a structural material as Marshmallow Fluff. I'm an Architect, know a few things about buildings, aircraft, and fire, and your statements are utter nonsense.
The 'expert' you cite, Dr. Judy Wood, is laughably insane. Trust me, if you drop thousands of tons of concrete over a thousand feet, you'll see 'dustification', and a lot of it, no space-based energy beams required. I suggest you go witness a building actually being imploded if you need some 'concrete' evidence.
Perhaps I'm a bit slow, or lost a bit on my fastball. Spell it out for me, if you don't mind.
Pardon all the typos.
Seriously? You're worried about the typos? Because they might detract from the credibility of your "observation"?
Barack Obama's off mike remarks to the Russians was that he intends to DISMANTLE the US military. And Chuck Hagel is his choice to do it. That's our Commander in Chief at work!
I-n-s-a-n-e.
Very close, at least... unless it's a purposeful lie. I don't believe he's so stupid that he believes the things he posts.
Once again, the chicken hawks of the right take to task a decorated veteran. At long last, have you gutless wonders have no shame?
Keeping us out of war when the future of our country is not threatened, can't be a bad thing. It's amazing the number of war mongers who have commented here. They won't be doing the fighting, of course. They'll just sit in their easy chairs and watch it on CNN... or more likely, on Fox News.